Re: Design Issue: Separate HEADERS and PRIORITY Frames, Eliminate HEADERS+PRIORITY

[Roberto Peon <[e-mail]>]

yup. Not a big deal either way. :)
-=R


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Jeff Pinner <[e-mail]> wrote:

> My preference for flag over opcode has to do with "one frame to open
> streams" while I acknowledge the extra branch in the frame decoder --
> though i think it might remove a branch in the session management code :)
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Roberto Peon <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I think that the opcode approach is easier (I have a single branch
>> instead of nested branches), but don't think it is a big deal either way.
>>
>> -=R
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:43 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> I have feelings about this bike shed color, but I don't care enough to
>>> argue why mine is the best color ever. I am satisfied that there is a way
>>> to convey priority within the same frame as the headers.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Jeff Pinner <[e-mail]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> At the time Roberto made the argument that the number of flags (8) was
>>>> more sparse than the number of frame types (256), but IIRC this was based
>>>> on the flags applying to all Control frames. At this point we have (at
>>>> least implicitly) decided that flags are frame-type specific (see PONG
>>>> flag), so I don't believe the argument is valid any more.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Martin Thomson <
>>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I remember having almost this exact discussion in Tokyo.  The only
>>>>> point that didn't come up this time was an argument Roberto made,
>>>>> namely: "A frame type is cheaper (fewer bits) than a flag."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>